UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War

THIS WEEK saw the fiftieth anniversary of a true milestone in the history of the Cyprus problem – the establishment of UNFICYP, the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus.

While the force is a fixture of the Cypriot political landscape, few now remember the difficult political circumstances surrounding its creation. It is a fascinating story that unfolded against the backdrop of the Cold War and British imperial decline.

The breakdown of the constitutional order in Cyprus, in December 1963, just three years after independence, sparked concern in many Western capitals. The emergence of a full scale civil war in Cyprus could have spilled over to Greece and Turkey, with potentially catastrophic implications for NATO unity.

In London, there was particular panic. Apart from the wider implications for the Western alliance, fighting on the island could threaten Britain’s military bases as well as the lives of the many British citizens still living in Cyprus.

Having hastily recalled ministers back from their Christmas holidays, the British government decided to take the lead on the creation of a peacekeeping mission composed of troops from Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, the three states that had undertaken to guarantee the island’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity under the terms of the island’s 1960 constitution.

However, from the very start, the mission – the Joint Truce Force (JTF) – ran into problems. The Turkish troops earmarked to participate had left their barracks to take up positions in Turkish Cypriot villages and neighbourhoods. They were not coaxed back. Without them, Athens made it clear that its forces on the island could not play a part in the operation. This effectively left Britain as the lone peacekeeper from day one.

Although the force carried out its duties to the best of its abilities, it was immediately apparent that Britain could not sustain such a major commitment indefinitely. Apart from its major presence in Germany, it was also dealing with its retreat from empire across the globe. Fighting several insurgencies and small wars elsewhere, it simply did not have the manpower to maintain a mission for more than a few months.

Frozen in time – UNFICYP has been patrolling the green line in Nicosia for 50 years

By late January, the pressure was starting to show. Although it was doing a good job calming tensions between the communities, many Greek Cypriots were starting to question the neutrality of the British army they had been fighting just a few years earlier. Meanwhile, a conference in London to try to broker a political agreement had failed. As a result, Turkey was showing increasing signs that it would take matters into its own hands and invade the island.

Faced with this, Britain scrambled to put together a new, more permanent peacekeeping force. One obvious option was to create a UN mission. However, the fear was that this would give the Soviet Union a say over developments. London therefore decided to explore the possibility of a force based around NATO. Cautious at first, Washington soon came to support the idea enthusiastically.

In contrast, the Greek Cypriot community, under the leadership of President Makarios, roundly rejected any talk of NATO involvement on the island. As they saw it, the organisation would always be inclined to side with Ankara given Turkey’s strategic position as the Western alliance’s most south-easterly flank. The presence of a NATO force would inevitably cement Turkish control over the island.

With growing pressure from London and Washington, Makarios played the Cold War card. In early February 1964, Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Premier, wrote to the three Guarantor Powers warning them against any interference in Cypriot affairs.

As its desperation increased, London now had no choice but to give up on the idea of a NATO force. Although a couple of other options were explored, including the idea of a Commonwealth Force, they failed to gain enough wider support. On February 15, and acting against the wishes of the United States, which still believed that an alternative route could be found, the United Kingdom gave up and submitted a request for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation on the island.

Clearing mines from the buffer zone has been one of the UN military’s major tasks

The debates that took place in New York over the next two weeks or so were to have a profound effect on the nature of the Cyprus Problem. It was, for example, at this stage that the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognised as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus. Most notably, it culminated in Security Council Resolution 186, passed on March 4, 1964, which established a mediating role for the UN – a role that essentially continues to this day – and the creation of UNFICYP. The first peace-keepers arrived in Cyprus on March 13.

One can only speculate what might have happened had a NATO force been introduced instead. It would certainly not have been beyond the realms of possibility that Cyprus could have been united with Greece, albeit with a large Turkish military presence on the island, or perhaps partitioned between Greece and Turkey. We will never know. However, what can be said for certain is that for a few weeks in early 1964, Cyprus became a frontline state in the Cold War and a visible symbol of Britain’s rapidly declining strength on the world stage.

Quite apart from anything else, UNFICYP is an enduring reminder of that long gone era.

James Ker-Lindsay is Senior Research Fellow at the London School of Economics. He is the author of ‘Britain and the Cyprus Crisis, 1963-1964’ and ‘The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know’, as well several other books on the modern history, politics and international relations of Cyprus. He is on Twitter @JamesKerLindsay

Today’s situation in CY is the most succesfull example of the British “divide and rule” policy. UNFICYP = UK army. The Greek-Cypriots are stupid enough to play that game and the Turks just love it.

Cris Dan

Such sort of history is repeated in many places. East India company founded by English traders reached India. Government there was as incompetent and weak as in Cyprus now and earlier and then times witnessed that foreigner traders were the rulers of the sub continent. One country-somehow two countries came out of it and Kashmir problem is a ever lasting bone of contention .

Senex22

Not quite as you say.
When the East India company arrived in India it was hundreds of countries. Each tiny state ruling itself. India was unified by the Brits. Once unified and successful the demand began to grow for independence.
By 1947 the Brits were ready to leave but the Indians could not agree terms. ( like somewhere else I know). Partition came exactly as the negotiators negotiated.
The Kashmir problem is a result of the partition agreement and not the Brits, who did not want partition.

Cris Dan

Senex, unfortunately ,it is quite true. India was ruled by Mughals and they were as weak and incompetent as nowadays we condemn Cypriot government. Different states were almost autonomous because of central weakness in Delhi(it was not officially a New Delhi at that time) .East India co.landed as trading company and subsequently country became a colony .There were many revolts but Merat mutiny took many lives. Divide and rule policy was effective and independence time Kashmir was ignored .When entered as East India co.it was not role of them to unite India ( so called) and to rule that country. Of course best tea of Darjeeling and herbs and minerals .But Indians were never happy as a colony. Never. Meerut mutiny is still remembered as sign of disliking English Raj.
Senex- no one likes slavery .

Cris Dan

Senex, unfortunately ,it is quite true. India was ruled by Mughals and they were as weak and incompetent as nowadays we condemn Cypriot government. Different states were almost autonomous because of central weakness in Delhi(it was not officially a New Delhi at that time) .East India co.landed as trading company and subsequently country became a colony .There were many revolts but Merat mutiny took many lives. Divide and rule policy was effective and independence time Kashmir was ignored .When entered as East India co.it was not role of them to unite India ( so called) and to rule that country. Of course best tea of Darjeeling and herbs and minerals .But Indians were never happy as a colony. Never. Meerut mutiny is still remembered as sign of disliking English Raj.
Senex- no one likes slavery

Cris Dan

East India company landed in India when Mughal rule was weak and most of the states were autonomous. So India was taken over as a English Colony and there were many protests afterwards. Meerut mutiny was one of the most important revolts against English and many lost their lives . English had to decide to quit .Like from all other colonies sooner or later .

Dipl.-Ing. Küfi Seydali

Unfortunately, despite this objective and balanced article which summarises the 50 years history of Cyprus, failed to point out as to what lead to ” the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognised as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus. Most notably, it culminated in Security Council Resolution 186, passed on March 4, 1964, which established a mediating role for the UN”. In fact, that debate was about getting UN troops in as fast as possible in order to stop the systematic murder of the Turkish Cypriots. that was the reason given to the Turkish side, which was really nothing more than a big lie! That decision and UN Resolution (186) was the biggest contributor to the 50-years old deadlock! You believe it or not, that is the bitter truth about the so-called Cyprus problem.

johnleonidas

This is typical of James Ker-Lindsay’s ill-informed and tendentious Cyprus outpourings, which seek to whitewash Britain’s role in bringing about partition.

Here, Ker-Lindsay suggests that the British were doing a ‘good job calming tensions’. What nonsense! The evidence, in fact, particularly that of Martin Packard, suggests that Britain far from ‘calming tensions’ was actually stoking them, by providing arms to the Turkish Cypriots – see the case of Major Ted Macey – and preventing TCs returning to their villages and in this way supporting the geographical separation of the two communities as a prelude to partition.

Senex22

You make the same mistake as most gc’s. The blame for the tension and the subsequent intervention in 1974 lies firmly with the makarios govt.

Brazen

So what makes you and Packard right and JKL wrong? Have you got evidence to prove your case?

cyp112

Martin Packard MBE explains his family and personal background as
well as his motivation in providing a first hand historical record of
how he came to be posted to assist General Sir Peter Young in a
peacekeeping role on the island of Cyprus during January 1964, following the outbreak of intercommunal violence between the Greek and Turkish speaking communities on the island at Christmas 1963.

“From the outset let me say that I’m a very passionate believer that am appalling injustice has been done to Cyprus and to all Cypriots. I don’t believe that is just something recent. I think that right from my time, and knowledge of Cyprus, going back into the 50’s the island’s been treated in the most appalling way that would not be tolerated in any other society.

“On the other hand I’m not a great believer in conspiracy theories. I think that there was a general mind-set at the time when I became intimately involved in Cypriot affairs in 1964. There was a general mind-set among NATO powers that whatever else happened,
the governance of Cyprus must not be left ultimately in to the Cypriots. There was a variety of reasons for that, but it was generally accepted.

So, the injustice came from this general ‘attitude’ first of all of the
NATO powers. It came from the manner in which covert and intelligence operations were conducted in the region, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that later, particularly through the stay-behind and the GWD and the sheepskin organisations, which meant that extreemists within both communities were being armed through NATO and given special training in assassination and disinformation. And it is expressed as well, this injustice, in the degree to which I believe Cypriot history of that period has been subsequently distorted, and people have accepted views of Cypriot history up to 63-64 that were very very wide of the mark.

“I think everything that came later, the McMillan Plan 50′, the imposed constitution 60’s, the Acheson Plan in 1964, and the Annan Plan much later – all of these were concoctions that were designed to suit outsiders’ interests rather than the interests of the Cypriot people. And I believe, very strongly, that this was a terrible part of the
‘Getting it Wrong’ process because I think that had there been policies that were genuinely democratic and applied to Cyprus, it could have become a very constructive member of the community of nations of the Eastern Mediterranean and there would have been huge benefits to every single party concerned.

“Most of the book is about the period that I have read have been books by academics who have had to inevitably depend on very limited information. Reading Lord Hannay’s book, reading other
books about Cyprus, I was struck by the degree to which they have simply excluded huge parts of the genuine history of that 63-64 period which the Turkish Cypriots very much represent as being the hinge at which Cyprus as it were moved into the separated stage at which it now finds itself.

“The problem with academic books is that there is so much that has not been reported and particularly in factors that are critical of Cyprus, and that, to my mind also comes back to the activities of the intelligence community there, and the way in which those intelligence communities deliberately distorted history in order to suit their own objectives.

“I think the importance of my book is that it squashes a number of myths. It gives people a basis from which to work over the 1964 period. It obviously, for me, gave me a chance to talk to people like yourselves and discuss with you the views that I have about what happened at that time.”

cyp112

A British documentary on how and why Cyprus is divided, first shown on British television in 1985, and how the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) came about.

Pity the article fails to mention the Canadian role, esp. LB Pearson’s, in setting up UNFICYP….that Vandoos from Quebec in fact arrived urgently early in 1964 on the island…even before SC Res.164…
The UN peacekeeping was doomed from the start because this Res. was based on a contradiction…it required Makarios’ cooperation, whereas in fact he was the one that had destroyed the constitutional order in the first place….declaring loudly that the ROC was DEAD.

cyp112

At 5:15 minutes Martin Packard says that British High Commissioner Arthur Clark encouraged Makarios to change the Constitution.

Packard
says the top secret document he read stated that high Commissioner Arthur Clark would
deny he encouraged Makarios to propose changes to the Constitution and
that the British Government would even pretend Arthur Clark had a moment
of insanity when he encouraged Makarios to change the Constitution if
Clark got found out!

Senex22

In no book that I have read on the subject did Packard provide any proof. I read this or I saw this or he said this to me.
I have no doubt the Brits acted badly at times but Packard should provide evidence.
The blame for all that happened is at the feet of the makarios govt.

cyp112

Packard reveals the British foreign office’s views on why Cyprus could not remain a unitary State.

The cold war might be warming up these days, but the role and efficiency of UNFICYP is really questionable. Strange enough, but UN didn’t bother so far with dispatching similar forces to genocide-affected countries – Rwanda, Somalia, Central Africa

The operation in Rwanda lasted 1993-1996 and failed to stop genocide. US-controlled operation in Somali took place in 1993-1995 with the same results, and was repeated as UNOSOM II (a.k.a. The Battle of Mogadishu) with the same results (portrayed in “Black Hawk Dawn”). GS submitted proposal to the Security Council of UN on increasing the UN presence in Central Africa (due to the fact that 2.000 French and 6.000 African soldiers assumed the responsibility but failed to stop the killings) on the 3rd of March only

Senex22

Your first blog did not mention success or otherwise. You said the un was not there, wrong!
If you change the question I can change the answer.
The un is rarely successful because it relies on support from counties, most of whom act in their own interests.

Cris Dan

Nice. A non -biased comment.

Alexey Golovanov

The operations listed above are considered (almost unanimously) in professional, i.e. military, circles as “UN most grandiose f…-ups”, while in civilian lingo of the top brass they are called “operations of restricted success”. One can add also Srebrenica (1995) and a failure to prevent Russians (SFOR and GRU task force) to take over Slatina airport (May 1995) and Pristina (June 1995). I do advise to pay rudimental attention to what I am saying, i.e. UN “peacekeeping” forces SHOULD BE dispatched to the territories suffering from genocide and massacres of civilians, instead of being stationed for decades in Cyprus, and doing…By the way, I’d like to note that (to my humble knowledge, although I might be wrong) there was no serious audit of UNFICYP costs/expenses in Cyprus. I specified also that UN was there (states/years as above specified), and gave up – also for the decades after grandiose f…ups – totally academic. I am not asking any questions either, and not interested in the reasons or excuses of UN failures

Cris Dan

and it presumption by many that United Nations has not or not making efforts there . Rwanda is unique in a resilience. Peace keeping operations are effective in areas where there are internal conflicts and a breaking point. Rwanda is very united in its destruction policies.

Cris Dan

Green line-Buffer Zone can not be called a futile activity.

Tarkan Halil

Just like other fossils, it has become irrelevant since 1974 and has no practical, useful purpose. Get rid of them and save the money.

By continuing to use the Cyprus Mail, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.